Has HiFi improved in the last 10 years?

[jaxwired]

Do you think equipment is any better now than it was 10 years ago.

If you read 10 year old reviews, the comments are pretty much identical as today. They always seem to be discovering a new "best". How is this possible? What makes HiFi today any better? What advances have their been in electronics and speakers?

 

[Anonymous]

my whole system (except interconnect) is vintage and sounds fine to me, and works flawlessy ... even my cdp never misses a beat and reads all cd's

nice thing about good vintage gear is that you can buy it at the fraction of the cost of a brand spanking new system ... and should things go pear shaped, it does not cost much to repair/refurbish

 

[the record spot]

I've listened to a lot of used kit in the last few years as well as some newer items and the difference doesn't appear to be as "night and day" as you might think. Maybe I just listen to the wrong kit, or just have poor hearing. Perhaps entry level hifi is better than that of 20 years ago and it is easier to find good sounding kit thanks to the benefits of technology trickle down, geater affordability, etc.

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:I've listened to a lot of used kit in the last few years as well as some newer items and the difference doesn't appear to be as "night and day" as you might think. Maybe I just listen to the wrong kit, or just have poor hearing. Perhaps entry level hifi is better than that of 20 years ago and it is easier to find good sounding kit thanks to the benefits of technology trickle down, geater affordability, etc.

no, you don't have wrong kit or poor hearing ... it all boils down to matching the correct components and you have done a fine job by combining the Marantz SA7001 KI, Sansui AU-217 and Mission 752 speakers ...

take the price you paid, and see what you can get new .... dont think you will find anything close to your system that costs 4 (or more) times more

 

[plastic penguin]

dim_span:

the record spot:I've listened to a lot of used kit in the last few years as well as some newer items and the difference doesn't appear to be as "night and day" as you might think. Maybe I just listen to the wrong kit, or just have poor hearing. Perhaps entry level hifi is better than that of 20 years ago and it is easier to find good sounding kit thanks to the benefits of technology trickle down, geater affordability, etc.

no, you don't have wrong kit or poor hearing ... it all boils down to matching the correct components and you have done a fine job by combining the Marantz SA7001 KI, Sansui AU-217 and Mission 752 speakers ...

take the price you paid, and see what you can get new .... dont think you will find anything close to your system that costs 4 (or more) times more

You're never going to get a definitve answer, for every 10 people who say modern stuff is better, you'll get another 10 saying it isn't.

 

[Craig M.]

if you're going to compare on price, then i don't see how new kit can compare with vintage - or even with ex. demo new kit. not a fair comparison.

 

[Anonymous]

Craig M.:

if you're going to compare on price, then i don't see how new kit can compare with vintage - or even with ex. demo new kit. not a fair comparison.

suppose you are right, but for many it boils down to 'bang for buck' ... and I would rather have a good sounding vintage system than a brand new rubbish system for the same price

 

[Anonymous]

many people are realising that the good quality older items are still very good compared to modern day equipment ...

can be seen with speakers ... example: LS3/5A ... now fetching riduculous prices on ebay ... some selling for £1500 or more and becoming collectors items and are very favoured by the Japanese/far east market ... you could get those for £150-£200 a year ago ...

Quad electrostatic speakers and IMF speakers have also become very collectable and sought after and prices are rising

same goes with good quality vintage amps ... compare the prices a year ago and you will see that good quality ones are fetching much higher prices and prices are going up daily ...

could be beacause they are becoming rarer? ... but at the end of the day, they still sound very good compared to modern equipment (if matched with the correct ancillaries)

 

[the record spot]

Interestingly, in a reply to a reader's query letter in this month's (whisper it) Hi Fi World, Noel Keywood mentioned that the cost of putting a system together, of good standard and last for the forseeable future (allowing five years say), you'd spend around £2k on the Leema Pulse amp at £1100, the Q Acoustics 1050i at £350 and a source (he quoted a Stello DAC, but you could put in a £600-odd CD player, as you will).

This struck me as being pretty interesting in the distribution of funds and also that you can snag a good sub-£500 floorstander that will perform with much higher quality electronics. The Q1050i is an intriguing choice in that, if anything, it's more reminiscent of a bygone speaker age in terms of sound quality; a big, sumptuous, near analogue kind of sound and hugely dynamic.

Again, I'm not so sure about improved, there's been an evolution, but with so much kit out there sounding "lean" (Cyrus, Cambridge and some KEF speakers are but three brands I've heard this point levelled against), I'm not completely convinced it's all for the good.

 

[the record spot]

dim_span:
no, you don't have wrong kit or poor hearing ... it all boils down to matching the correct components and you have done a fine job by combining the Marantz SA7001 KI, Sansui AU-217 and Mission 752 speakers ...

take the price you paid, and see what you can get new .... dont think you will find anything close to your system that costs 4 (or more) times more

Thanks for the kind words d_s, it's not bad is it!

Let's see, amp £33 (fully serviced at that), CDP £300 (sale, way too good to pass up), speakers £80 - £413. Allow £50 for the interconnect and the same again for the speaker cable and we're up and running at £500 all in say. Would I put this up against a comparably priced system now? I reckon it'd run a good race.

 

[Anonymous]

well i've stated it before, but I auditioned a £3600 system approx a week ago ... cambridge audio equipment with a pair of mezzo 8 speakers ... both my wife and I were not impressed (when comparing to our system)

could it be that my system is rubbish, and we have we become used to the sound produced? ....

not sure, as many favour the combination of the cambridge audio gear and the mezzo 8's

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:dim_span: no, you don't have wrong kit or poor hearing ... it all boils down to matching the correct components and you have done a fine job by combining the Marantz SA7001 KI, Sansui AU-217 and Mission 752 speakers ...

take the price you paid, and see what you can get new .... dont think you will find anything close to your system that costs 4 (or more) times more

Thanks for the kind words d_s, it's not bad is it!

Let's see, amp £33 (fully serviced at that), CDP £300 (sale, way too good to pass up), speakers £80 - £413. Allow £50 for the interconnect and the same again for the speaker cable and we're up and running at £500 all in say. Would I put this up against a comparably priced system now? I reckon it'd run a good race.

my system:

pioneer sa-9800 amp= £275; B&W speakers = £50; Marantz cdp=£130; silver high breed interconnect=£30; soundstage 5 rack stand=£70; speaker cable = £8

total spent= £563 (and that includes the hifi stand) ...

 

[Anonymous]

Speaking as one of those 'Quad people' I would say that that it hasn't really improved in the last 50 years

 

[Anonymous]

CologneBrit:Speaking as one of those 'Quad people' I would say that that it hasn't really improved in the last 50 years

read a quote somewhere (cannot remember the exact words, but is something to this effect): speaker technology has improved vastly over the past 30 years, but sound quality produced from these new speakers has not

 

[Craig M.]

was the demo in your own room? if not i think it can be hard to compare, the room has a big an impact as the kit itself, imo. i think if you want to compare vintage on a like for like basis with new kit, you need to take it's new price and adjust for inflation etc. i saw this done on another forum, i think, and was pretty suprised how much something that cost say, a 100 pound 30 years ago, would cost today. one of the other mags also did it recently with regard to some speakers, compared to the new diamond 10.1's. that's why i don't think comparing what, say, the trs has, with new kit that cost the same as he paid for his is strictly a fair comparison. the kit he has, if bought new today, would cost loads more. i'm talking strictly about whether kit has improved over the years, not the vfm of new to old kit.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

dim_span:Craig M.:

if you're going to compare on price, then i don't see how new kit can compare with vintage - or even with ex. demo new kit. not a fair comparison.

suppose you are right, but for many it boils down to 'bang for buck' ... and I would rather have a good sounding vintage system than a brand new rubbish system for the same price

Surely the original question is basically is a budget system now better than a budget system 10 tyears ago. Is the amp costing a months wages as good as an amp costing a months wages 10 years aago, and so on. Otherwise, you could say a £1000 amp three years ago can now be bought on ebay for £400 and will be better than one brand new at £750.

The OP said, "i'm talking strictly about whether kit has improved over the years, not the vfm of new to old kit.".

 

[the record spot]

Craig M.:
was the demo in your own room? if not i think it can be hard to compare, the room has a big an impact as the kit itself, imo. i think if you want to compare vintage on a like for like basis with new kit, you need to take it's new price and adjust for inflation etc. i saw this done on another forum, i think, and was pretty suprised how much something that cost say, a 100 pound 30 years ago, would cost today. one of the other mags also did it recently with regard to some speakers, compared to the new diamond 10.1's. that's why i don't think comparing what, say, the trs has, with new kit that cost the same as he paid for his is strictly a fair comparison. the kit he has, if bought new today, would cost loads more. i'm talking strictly about whether kit has improved over the years, not the vfm of new to old kit.

Very true Craig, but I'm aware that comparing the speakers with a pair of mini-monitors costing £80 new isn't a fair fight, not when they were £550 new in 1994 or so! So, compare them with like for like however (which I would do anyway) and put them in with a sonically similar £600 box now and see where the past 15 years have gone. Mezzo 6s for instance. That'd be interesting I think.

 

[the record spot]

Gerrardasnails:
Surely the original question is basically is a budget system now better than a budget system 10 tyears ago. Is the amp costing a months wages as good as an amp costing a months wages 10 years aago, and so on. Otherwise, you could say a £1000 amp three years ago can now be bought on ebay for £400 and will be better than one brand new at £750.

The OP said, "i'm talking strictly about whether kit has improved over the years, not the vfm of new to old kit.".

Indeed, but if we're looking to buy new or used and are willing to consider the latter, then it makes life interesting. Pros and cons to both of course. Longer warranties, new out the box etc., all appeal to many people and it's not hard to see why in fairness.

 

[Anonymous]

no but the sound that was in fashion up to the early nineties the big full rich sound has given way to the fast hyperdetailed eargrating stuff we have now

sounds good in shops and demos and thats why people like it just like the new world inventing the taste for fresh fruity young wines rather than the older bigger wines that needed years to mature because its easier to sell

listen to the lovely kef speakers of a few years ago and compare it to the leaner tauter ones on offer now

oh and prat and source first were marketing inventions of the eighties which increased in popularity in the nineties and now hold sway

mind you i like the prat part

the improvement has been in streaming solutions though that has had little impact on the sound except if you go compressed wich makes it notably worse

 

[the record spot]

Source first an 80s invention? Linn LP12 anyone?

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:Craig M.:

was the demo in your own room? if not i think it can be hard to compare, the room has a big an impact as the kit itself, imo. i think if you want to compare vintage on a like for like basis with new kit, you need to take it's new price and adjust for inflation etc. i saw this done on another forum, i think, and was pretty suprised how much something that cost say, a 100 pound 30 years ago, would cost today. one of the other mags also did it recently with regard to some speakers, compared to the new diamond 10.1's. that's why i don't think comparing what, say, the trs has, with new kit that cost the same as he paid for his is strictly a fair comparison. the kit he has, if bought new today, would cost loads more. i'm talking strictly about whether kit has improved over the years, not the vfm of new to old kit.

Very true Craig, but I'm aware that comparing the speakers with a pair of mini-monitors costing £80 new isn't a fair fight, not when they were £550 new in 1994 or so! So, compare them with like for like however (which I would do anyway) and put them in with a sonically similar £600 box now and see where the past 15 years have gone. Mezzo 6s for instance. That'd be interesting I think.

ok, good point ... lets take an example (working on usa rates of minum wage) ... just a basic calculation based on minum wage and not including tax rates/inflation etc

lets take a pioneer SA-9800 amp .... in 1980 it cost $800 .... in 1980, the minum wage in the USA was $3.10, so you would have to work 258 hours to buy one

todays min wage in the USA is $7.25 ... so, times that by 258 hours and you will have $1870.50 ... (a rough calculation at todays exchange rate will give you £1128.98 ... which will give you a cryus 8xp, a naim nait xs, a Leema pulse, moon i-1, and a few others

so now how do we compare? .... cannot say, as I have not heard them side by side compared to the pioneer SA-9800

but I can say.... get a pioneer SA-9800 for the fraction of the cost!

(would be a good topic for WHF to cover and compare)

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:Source first an 80s invention? Linn LP12 anyone?no idea really just thought linn and naim were behind the source first thing and the prat thing

woops your right the linn started in 1972

 

[Anonymous]

and a follow up to my last post:

todays min wage in the USA is $7.25 ... so, times that by 258 hours and you will have $1870.50 ... (a rough calculation at todays exchange rate will give you £1128.98 ... which will give you a cryus 8xp, a naim nait xs, a Leema pulse, moon i-1, and a few others

some 'excerpts from current WHF reviews:

Naim nait XS: Loses grip on the deepest bass

Leema pulse: Can sound lightweight and querulous

moon i-1:Lacks the detail of the very best; low frequencies could be more taut

and I've never read a bad review on the Pioneer SA-9800

 

[idc]

chebby:.......Although the recent RoHS compliance to lead free solder and the associated risk of 'whiskering' may come back to bite us all in a few years time.........

According to my engineering buddy that is an absolute certainty.

 

[Anonymous]

I think more important will be ask if recording studio gear and sound engineers are improved in the last 10 years. Otherwise there is not too much benefits from latest hi-fi equipment.